…Dr. Carson had used the chance to raise many of the old critiques against NPP with which I was already familiar through my TEDS classroom experience with him. But there are still many things I do not know how you would (or if you have) personally respond, such as the critique against your and NPP scholars’ “Greek exegesis” of justification (δικαιοσύνη) in terms of covenantal inclusion as an unfaithful semantic stretch (and so is τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου in terms of Judaizing boundary marking legal practices, which is yet another critique, though originally by Dr. Doug Moo, that got brought up this time).
I remember listening to your lecture in person in which you mentioned have responded to this critique in written form. I just wonder if you could direct me to the best literature that does exegetical justice to the view of δικαιοσύνη (and Hebrew צַדִּ֛יק) as covenantal entitlement?
…But basically we are made to assume that Tom and Don are old rivals as well as good friends, and what Don said cannot surprised Tom the way it did some of us who heard him the first time.
至於賴特是否不懂希臘文，或在「稱義」視為「擺正關係」、「置入盟約群體」時，沒有正確地研究原文語義？賴特在 Expository Times 期刊將刊出但還未正式刊出的一篇論文〈Translating dikaiosyne: a response〉給予了最新的回應，回應對象是西澳浸信會神學院的新約教授穆爾（Dr Richard Moore），也是針對魏斯特鴻（Stephen Westerholm）《再思稱義》（Justification Reconsidered: Rethinking A Pauline Theme, 2013 ）一書第四章的回應。（至於卡森在此領域的研究，以近年學術論文發表的狀態，尚未如上述兩位福音派學者來得前延和深入。）
So how should we translate dikaiosyne? … the titles of his [Moore’s] works offer three possibilities: ‘rectification’ (the term preferred by J. L. Martyn and his followers, but I suspect with a different meaning to Moore’s), ‘justification’, and the language of ‘right relation’. I am, he may be surprised to learn, happy with ‘right relation’ – provided only that the ‘relation’ in question is precisely the covenant relationship, which is of course what he resists.
當然，穆爾和賴特對於「擺正關係」的語境理解並不太一樣。穆爾對 δικαιοσύνη一希臘文字詞研究的論文〈DIKAIOSUNJ AND COGNATES IN PAUL: THE SEMANTIC GULF BETWEEN TWO MAJOR LEXICONS (BAUER-ARNDT-GINGRICH-DANKER AND LOUW-NIDA)〉（可點擊連結下載閱讀） 我也在此摘要一段核心看法，與賴特對照：
In three places in Galatians and Romans Paul relates one of the three dikai words to the word theos by means of a preposition:
ὅτι δὲἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον（在神面前，沒有一個人可以靠著律法稱義）, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται· (Gal 3:11 BGT)
οὐ γὰρ οἱ ἀκροαταὶ νόμου δίκαιοι παρὰ [τῷ] θεῷ, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου δικαιωθήσονται （原來在 神面前、不是聽律法的為義、乃是行律法的稱義）. (Rom 2:13 BGT)
διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας （沒有一個人可以靠行律法，在 神面前得稱為義，因為藉著律法，人對於罪才有充分的認識。）. (Rom 3:20 BGT)
Here Paul is speaking of right (the adjective) and of setting right (the verb) in a particular relationship to God, right as it is seen from Gods perspective . This is not a usage one finds in Greek prior to the New Testament;21 Paul achieves this effect by the use of bridging prepositions which are, however, very common in everyday Greek. In doing so, however, he [Paul] creates a new concept: what is right from the divine perspective or viewpoint, what God regards as right, or who God regards as being in a right relationship with himself.
這些非常密集的希臘文討論，適合參照手邊的原文與神學辭典。然而賴特提供了一份註腳清單，證明δικαιοσύνη 在七十士譯本就是用來處理 tsedaqah （צְדָקָה，希伯來文的「義」），tsedaqah 毫無疑問經常是盟約處境中的語言。
But the covenant relationship between God and his people looms large in the biblical texts Paul is quoting or echoing… « the Septuagint », where dikaiosyne and its cognates frequently render tsedaqah and its cognates. And tsedaqah regularly carries covenantal meanings of which the Greek dikaiosyne would otherwise have been innocent, but with which it is thereby regularly invested. A glance at basic dictionaries strongly confirms this, [FOOTNOTE: Seebass and Brown in NIDNTT 3.355-7, 363; Schrenk in TDNT 2.195; Hays in ADB 3.1120, 1131f.; Reumann in ABD 5.471, etc.] as does a further glance at standard secondary texts. [FOOTNOTE: e.g. Ziesler 1972, 20, 37-9, citing older studies; Eichrodt 1961, 1.241f.; von Rad 1973, 185.] Dr Moore makes no attempt to refute this widely-held position.
When Paul, with the Septuagint in his head, uses dikaiosyne, the word is capable of carrying a dense, interwoven range of meaning for which there is no single English word in sight. Hence we must paraphrase. …
筆者個人也在查原文聖經辯析tsedaqah 的語境時，讀到幾段表面上就很顯著的經文。如雅各對拉班的抗辯：「以後你來查看我的工價、凡在我手裡的山羊不是有點有斑的、綿羊不是黑色的、那就算是我偷的．這樣、便可證出我的公義（ צִדְקָתִי֙ ）來。」（創30:33）很明顯，比起外部審判法庭的用語，這在近東文明中，更是一個 contract bound 的語言，被雅各用來處理他和拉班｛在上帝面前｝的「契約關係」，是「參與性的倫理」而非康德邏輯推理式的道德義務。
其他例子包含詩篇：「他們必大大震驚，因為神在義人的群體中（ אֱ֜לֹהִ֗ים בְּד֣וֹר צַדִּֽיק ）。」（詩篇14:5）以賽亞的預言：「我使我的公義臨近了，必不遠離；我的救恩必不遲延。我要為以色列，我的榮耀，在錫安施行拯救。」（賽：46:13）這些都是盟約的義、群體的義、上帝基於自身守約信實（faithfulness of God）的義。
But does Paul really retain the covenantal associations of LXX dikaiosyne, or has he gone in a different direction? Has he, as some in Reformed circles insist, simply used the normal meaning of ‘moral goodness’? This is of course frequent in both Testaments, and is often invoked to fund the ‘covenant of works’ view of ‘justification’ popular in some Reformed circles (‘we need “righteousness” in terms of “moral goodness”; we don’t have any; Jesus has plenty, and it gets “imputed” to us). Or has he, as I think Moore is suggesting, spoken of a ‘right relationship’, in terms either of a legal ‘standing’ or a ‘personal relationship with God’ in an existential or spiritual sense? That is how a non-covenantal and often individualistic protestant reading of Paul has taken it. This is where Moore seems to be going. But is that true to Paul?
尤其是在羅馬書4:3 以及加拉太書 3:6 為保羅所引用的「亞伯蘭信耶和華、耶和華就以此為他的義」（創15:6）替賴特提供了強烈的聖經神學論述，肯定這些在希伯來聖經、七十士譯本就是約的語言、約的神學。
Romans 4.3 and Galatians 3.6 both quote Genesis 15.6. But Genesis 15 is all about God’s double promise to Abraham (a huge, uncountable ‘seed’, and a territorial ‘inheritance’). These are then guaranteed by the establishment of the covenant, which also specifies that the inheritance will be gained through rescue from slavery (Genesis 15.7-21). Does Paul have this larger picture of Genesis 15 in mind? Emphatically yes. Both the ‘seed’ and the ‘inheritance’ are major themes in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. In Galatians 4.1-7, and more extensively in Romans 6—8, these are accomplished precisely through the exodus-like rescue of slaves.
But can elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen really mean that God ‘established a covenant with him’? Again, emphatically yes. In Numbers 25.6-13 Phinehas intervenes to stop the Israelite immorality, and God establishes with him ‘a covenant of perpetual priesthood’. This is echoed exactly in ben-Sirach 45.23-25 and 1 Maccabees 2.54. But when the same episode is summarized in Psalm 106.28-31, the shorthand way of saying ‘and so God established a covenant with him’ is the same phrase that we find in Genesis 15.6. At least, the Hebrew is virtually identical; the Septuagint (Psalm 105.31) is exactly the same, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosynen.
The fact that the verse concludes ‘from generation to generation for ever’ indicates that this ‘reckoning of righteousness’ does indeed refer to the establishment of the covenant spoken of in Numbers and elsewhere. Granted the well-known covenantal overtones of tsedaqah, and hence of dikaiosyne when used to translate it (see the scholars quoted above), this construction, though occurring only in these two passages, is perfectly comprehensible.
[T]he traditionalists such as Dr Carson… want to preserve the ‘covenant of works’ scheme (God gave Adam a command so that he could obey it and have life; he disobeyed; Jesus obeyed instead and we benefit from his ‘righteousness’ in terms of legal/moral obedience – is that not how it goes?). This is a radical distortion of Genesis, never mind Paul; in Genesis, Adam has a VOCATION, and by his sin he fails in it; God calls Abraham and gives him the parallel vocation, only now to reverse the situation . . . etc etc. Carson and co simply don’t want to see any elements of this – though it is clear in Paul, esp in Romans – and so throw mud at people like me who are basically trying to read the text!